It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Paper questions the effect of carbon on global warming

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:03 PM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley




Given the number of comments he's receiving on his articles, I think this counts as his theory's peer review.


A that would be a negatory, good buddy.




posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
More water vapor means more clouds



Not only is water vapor a greenhouse gas, when it condenses to form clouds, heat is released.

It is a flawed assumption to assume more water vapor will lead to a cooling effect.
edit on 7-10-2015 by jrod because: p



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie




It has for a long time seemed to me based on my knowledge of chemistry and physics that more carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere replacing the oxygen would translate into cooler temperatures.


Oxygen is not being replaced by CO2 or H20.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be telling you that greenhouse gases allow heat energy to reach the Earth surface, but not radiate it away. Until recently the Earth system was in relative balance, 'we' radiated just about the same as we received, less the amount of solar energy we 'stored' in plants. The addition of massive amounts of greenhouse gases (mainly CO2) due to human activity has upset that balance and cause the Earth to warm up as less excess energy was radiated back into space.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be informing you that as the atmosphere warms up it can hold more water vapor 'in solution'. Water vapor is another greenhouse gas, stronger even than CO2, so the more water vapor in solution in the atmosphere the stronger the greenhouse effect. Clouds are not 'in solution', warming the atmosphere allows more water vapor to remain in solution without turning into clouds.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be informing you that CO2 and H2O both contain oxygen, no oxygen is being replaced.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be informing you that there is yet another greenhouse gas that is far more 'dangerous' than CO2 or H2O: methane. It has gotten very little mention so far but is beginning to raise its ugly head - and its head is very ugly indeed. Methane is one of the strongest greenhouse gases and is produced in huge volumes by rotting organic matter. Right now we think of methane as the product of flatulent cows (and maybe your roommate) and some garbage dumps. But as we are warming up, the tundra, especially the Siberian Tundra is starting to melt. Once that gets going in a serious manner, the greenhouse effect will be multiplied many many times over as vast amounts of methane gets pumped into the atmosphere.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be informing you that your children will be living in a very different world from you - and I don't mean technologically.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jrod




Joannenova.com pushes junk science. This is an absolute fact.


Fixed it for you.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
Great! Someone that thinks, way to much is under "peer review". By his "peers". If he's trying to discredit "global warming". He's more of a fool, than they, that believe it exists. Tell me? Why do fools need to be discredited? Let the fools argue among themselves.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie




I'm hypothesizing based on the principles of the behavior of a mixture of gases and liquids in a container. The earth's surface and atmosphere are a really big container, sure, but those basic principles will still apply, subject to local variations of course.


The Earth's surface and atmosphere are not a container. The atmosphere is open to space - gravity does not make anything close to a perfect container.

Burning fossil fuel and releasing the byproduct gases into the atmosphere does not remove anything from the atmosphere - it adds stuff to the atmosphere that was previously 'sequestered'. This includes carbon and oxygen both in the form of CO2 especially, but other gaseous forms as well. Oxygen is NOT removed.

Furthermore, the 'basic principles' you invoke apply to a 'closed system'. The Earth is NOT a closed system in any way shape or form. Energy is being added and radiated constantly, and solar is not the only energy to 'strike' the Earth. Mass is constantly raining down from space at the rate of about 50,000 tonnes per year. All that 'new' energy keeps the atmosphere in constant flux not equilibrium.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie



More water vapor means more clouds.


Actually no, it doesn't. Water vapor is water molecules in solution in the volume of gas. Clouds are drops of water that are not in solution.

You get clouds, any clouds, when the local patch of atmosphere is 'saturated' - that is it cannot hold any more water vapor. That is called the 'dew point', the point of temperature and pressure when water comes out of solution and begins to form droplets. If you keep shoving more water into that local patch of atmosphere, or perhaps more importantly change the temperature or pressure, it comes back out in the form of rain.

Now, your knowledge of chemistry and physics, should tell you that as the atmosphere warms, its carrying capacity for water vapor increases. It can hold more water before it is saturated - so more water can be held in the atmosphere BEFORE clouds are formed. Put enough water into the local patch, and sure, clouds will form. Now when you change the temperature or pressure and the water comes out of the atmosphere as rains you have a lot more water to come out. And because it took longer for enough water to saturate the local patch of atmosphere, that patch has probably moved farther away than previously - so drought in one place and floods in another.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics seems to be letting you down badly here. Perhaps you should start over at the beginning.



posted on Oct, 7 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

I said that in a kind of tongue-and-cheek manner. That's not exactly standard procedure for peer review.

I take it that you believe he's full of hot air?


-dex



posted on Oct, 8 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DexterRiley



I take it that you believe he's full of hot air?


Negatory again, good buddy.

I think he's full of bovine excrement.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Oxygen is not being replaced by CO2 or H20.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics should be informing you that CO2 and H2O both contain oxygen, no oxygen is being replaced.


Molecular oxygen is being replaced by water vapor and carbon dioxide, molecules that, though they contain the element oxygen, are not and do not contain molecules of oxygen.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 07:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Earth's surface and atmosphere are not a container. The atmosphere is open to space - gravity does not make anything close to a perfect container.

The earth's atmosphere is a container, albeit a large one that is subject to local variation.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

You get clouds, any clouds, when the local patch of atmosphere is 'saturated' - that is it cannot hold any more water vapor. That is called the 'dew point', the point of temperature and pressure when water comes out of solution and begins to form droplets. If you keep shoving more water into that local patch of atmosphere, or perhaps more importantly change the temperature or pressure, it comes back out in the form of rain.

Now, your knowledge of chemistry and physics, should tell you that as the atmosphere warms, its carrying capacity for water vapor increases. It can hold more water before it is saturated - so more water can be held in the atmosphere BEFORE clouds are formed. Put enough water into the local patch, and sure, clouds will form. Now when you change the temperature or pressure and the water comes out of the atmosphere as rains you have a lot more water to come out. And because it took longer for enough water to saturate the local patch of atmosphere, that patch has probably moved farther away than previously - so drought in one place and floods in another.

Your knowledge of chemistry and physics seems to be letting you down badly here. Perhaps you should start over at the beginning.

My knowledge seems to be serving me just fine, and I think you're helping me make my point with your attempt at refutation here. A higher water vapor capacity in the atmospheric mixture means that when conditions permit condensation more vapor will be available to condense. My original statement is still valid, according to your attempted refutation.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: TheBadCabbie

The Earth's surface and atmosphere are not a container. The atmosphere is open to space - gravity does not make anything close to a perfect container.

The earth's atmosphere is a container, albeit a large one that is subject to local variation.


Then explain why Hydrogen easily escapes Earth's atmosphere.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Then explain why Hydrogen easily escapes Earth's atmosphere.

It's not a perfectly sealed container. Still a container.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: TheBadCabbie
The Earth is not a closed system.

I thought you actually wanted to learn something here, but instead you are trying to refute good information and science with your version which is full of faulty reasoning.



posted on Oct, 9 2015 @ 08:44 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel
He likely isn't serious enough to get this work published because the paper is not valid.

If he were to try to get published and then rejected by the peer review process, the denier crowd will just claim this is proof that the mainstream science is trying to silence the anti AGW view, while ignoring the reality that this paper is not backed by science.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join